We live in uncertain times. Market are generally good but increasingly unpredictable. Jobs are plentiful but everyone seems perpetually stressed. There never seems to be enough time to get everything done. In short, the future does not appear quite as certain as it once did.

     In the business world, there is a growing realization that the best way to deal with chaos is to be as flexible as possible. Indeed, there are tremendous advantages associated with being more agile than one's competitors. Without a doubt, the ability to respond quickly and decisively to rapidly changing conditions is the key to long-term success.

     In higher education, however, we seem to espouse a different philosophy. Over the last twenty-five years, the economic realities that have always shaped the rest of society have slowly but surely made themselves known on the college campus.

     But what has been our reaction?

     In general, colleges and universities have tried to cope with these influences by enhancing their public relations efforts and increasing the development of, and adherence to, standards. In short, higher education has responded in exactly the wrong fashion.

     Whereas any institution must be concerned to some extent with its image, many colleges and universities have become obsessed with appearances. In the minds of many administrators, looking good has become synonymous with being good. Reputation is seen as an institution's primary attribute.

     When questioned about quality, colleges and universities tighten their admissions standards in a rather misguided attempt to create the appearance of higher quality. But as any moviegoer knows, the price of a ticket often has nothing to do with how good the show is. When questioned about rigor, academics are quick to point out how hard it is to get a degree from their particular institution. Obviously, this makes the piece of paper worth more.

     And when the legislature speaks, we want the perception that we are being responsive.

     Years ago, the corporate sector figured out that extensive bureaucracies impede the ability to respond quickly to rapidly changing markets and provide innovative solutions to customer problems. In private industry, security is tied to the ability to customize products and services which meet the needs of a diverse and constantly changing population.

     But higher education is obsessed with standardization. Security seems to be associated with the implementation of extensive control structures that are intrinsically designed to keep our colleges and universities machines of mass commoditization.

     Got a problem? Develop a policy. Create a guideline. Endlessly limit the ability of those closest to the student to help them meet their needs.

     Historically, there was a time when the 'one size fits all' mentality was appropriate for both our culture and, by default, our institutions of higher education. But as nostalgic for the good old days as many administrators seem to be, this is not the philosophy that will sustain us into the next century.

     Treating everyone equally is not the same as treating them fairly. Unfortunately, most educational leaders do not seem to understand or accept this rather self-evident notion. They believe our graduates should all take roughly the same courses, complete the same assignments, jump the same hurdles, and, if the truth be known, eat the same foods and wear the same clothes.

     In trying to force everyone into the same mold, the unique strengths and weaknesses of each individual student are inherently overlooked. Holding everyone to the same yardstick only serves to create an illusion of quality, consistency and rigor. In reality, however, such a strategy is intrinsically counterproductive to achieving these ends.

     In the real world, everyone has different wants and needs. Our occupational, personal, social, and even emotional preferences vary widely. And we seek to meet those needs in a variety of ways.

     So why do we insist on strict uniformity in the academic experiences we provide?

     Simply stated, decision-making authority needs to be taken out of the hands of professional gate-keepers and distributed to those who can do the most good for the students; i.e., the academic advisors and the student affairs professionals.

     The most successful companies are those that empower their front-line employees to make key decisions that are in the best interests of those they serve. They have access to the best information and generally make better decisions than those 2-3 levels up the hierarchy. If given a chance, the same strategy will work in higher education.

     First and foremost, education is a human endeavor. And it is far too important an endeavor to be left solely in the hands of administrators. The determination of degree programs, for example, should be left exclusively to faculty advisors and student affairs professionals. They typically know more about what a student needs -- academically and otherwise -- than anyone else on campus. Logically, they need the absolute authority to act on their assessments.

     Admittedly, higher education needs standards, but they should be as broad as possible and allow for maximum discretion. This is the only way to ensure that each student has an educational experience ideally suited to their individual needs.

     And guess what?

     This will precipitate true quality (not just its perception) in higher education. And genuine quality has a way of creating its own positive PR, thus eliminating a need for the manufactured variety.

     There really is something to the idea of empowerment. Even in the Ivory Tower.